Democracy is the worst form of government...

[Whyayeman]

I am aware who the of the enemies of democracy are. My sentence was a bit awkward, but I was trying to acknowledge that the context of all of the referenced programs (social security, medicare) and the counters (24th amendment) were all specifically American and you are not.

OK, I understand.

We have social security too; sick pay, unemployment benefit, universal credit, access to free health care annual optical tests and some dental care. It is notionally paid from a hypothecated National Insurance which is taken from pay packets but is nowadays heavily subsidised by general taxation.

I am appalled by the thought that my fellow citizens would be disenfranchised for paying the local GP a visit or claiming benefits. Withdrawing the vote on grounds of needing support is just horrible. I am surprised that it even raised here.

 

[o_mlly]

Somebody please cheer me up and tell me we can expect something better. ... What we are doing is deciding what we might want as a means to produce a viable government. ... Let me know when you start the thread. I'll definitely join in.

Viable as in capable of working successfully?

Apparently addressing threats to democracy's viability is not really a qualifying attribute for a post; rather only posts that will cheer up the OP need apply. It's your thread. Good luck with it.

 

[o_mlly]

Sure I did. It's a backdoor poll tax (net positive payment to the government is required to vote) and violates the 24th amendment.

Sorry, your jurisprudence needs a better foundation. The proposal does not disqualify from voting anyone who does not pay their taxes, poll tax or otherwise.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Sorry, your jurisprudence needs a better foundation. The proposal does not disqualify from voting anyone who does not pay their taxes, poll tax or otherwise.

You're talking about restricting voting based on net receipts to the government.

 

[o_mlly]

You're talking about restricting voting based on net receipts to the government.

Yes.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yes.

And that is disgusting and undemocratic. It would take votes away from most senior citizens.

 

[o_mlly]

And that is disgusting and undemocratic. It would take votes away from most senior citizens.

Really? Why is that? Is it unethical to have policies that affect those who cannot vote?

Present policies that have deficits continuing as far as the eye can see "take the vote" away from all our children and grandchildren. Is not that even more disgusting, ie., living large off the backs of our children some who are not even yet born?

Again, I'm all ears for alternate proposals. (Run them by the OP first to ensure they cheer him up.)

 

[o_mlly]

I am talking about how we individualy live our lives. Unless our individual proclivities are harmful to society in some way then I don't want the government to interfere with our choices.

I really do not care what consenting adults do as long as it is done behind closed doors. However, impressionable children will be harmed if what parents believe ought to be done behind closed doors is done in the public square so as to appear normal.

 

[Pommer]

What one wants and what is are often two entirely different things as is the case with laws and morals. One cannot wish away or escape the fact that there are moral and immoral laws

This could bring up a question then:
Can we conceive of a “good” “immoral law” existing?

 

[Pommer]

What is at issue in the US is not so much improvements in our system of democratic governance but more likely it's survival.

Americans’ national debt is now $31 trillion. That about 125 percent of current GDP. The liabilities are unsustainable. We run annual deficits of $1.6 trillion. These financial obligations will eventually ensure that rising interest rates to service the debt crowd out essential spending for national defense and the general welfare.

In 2010 Obama appointed a bipartisan “National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.” More commonly remembered as the Simpson-Bowles commission; it included both private citizens and elected officials.

The commission recommended radical tax simplifications and some cuts—along with reductions in tax deductions and credits, an increase in the gas tax, restraints on entitlement spending, and various spending caps. Obama and Congress ultimately rejected the recommendations and the commission’s blueprint died.

Why? Welfare programs are described as the "third rail" of American politics. Any politician who touches these entitlements suffers political death. Business as usual will not address the reality of these unsustainable liabilities. So, we can either begin with as little pain as possible to remove the patient gradually from the edge of this cliff or just continue to wait and push him over the edge.

Disconnecting our politicians from the threat of electrocution seems a good idea.

I think that upward of two-thirds of the public debt are monies that we owe to ourselves, I say that we’re “good for it”.

 

[Pommer]

Really? Why is that? Is it unethical to have policies that affect those who cannot vote?

If the ballot contains measures that would affect those who are disenfranchised, yes.

Present policies that have deficits continuing as far as the eye can see "take the vote" away from all our children and grandchildren. Is not that even more disgusting, ie., living large off the backs of our children some who are not even yet born?

They’ll deal with their realities when they deal with them; perhaps the rapture will occur and the heathen go go about their busniess without all tne God-botherers running around?

 

[o_mlly]

This could bring up a question then:
Can we conceive of a “good” “immoral law” existing?

I can't. Can you?

 

[o_mlly]

I think that upward of two-thirds of the public debt are monies that we owe to ourselves, I say that we’re “good for it”.

I don't think to whom the debt is owed to matters. "[T]o service the debt crowds out essential spending for national defense and the general welfare."

 

[o_mlly]

If the ballot contains measures that would affect those who are disenfranchised, yes.

They’ll deal with their realities when they deal with them; perhaps the rapture will occur and the heathen go go about their busniess without all tne God-botherers running around?

Get back to me when you have something serious to post.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Really? Why is that? Is it unethical to have policies that affect those who cannot vote?

I can not think of *ANY* ethical argument to restrict voting for *ANY* adult citizen.

Present policies that have deficits continuing as far as the eye can see "take the vote" away from all our children and grandchildren. Is not that even more disgusting, ie., living large off the backs of our children some who are not even yet born?

What??!!? Deficits don't take away anyone's vote. Get a grip.

Again, I'm all ears for alternate proposals. (Run them by the OP first to ensure they cheer him up.)

For voter suppression? No thanks.

 

[Bradskii]

Viable as in capable of working successfully?

Obviously.

Apparently addressing threats to democracy's viability is not really a qualifying attribute for a post;

As I keep saying, policies can (and I think should) be put forward by anyone wishing to stand for election. What they might be and whether you personally would vote for them are largely irrelevant in the context of this discussion. We aren't deciding on specific policies. We aren't deciding on who gets elected. We are deciding how they get elected.

 

[Bradskii]

I really do not care what consenting adults do as long as it is done behind closed doors. However, impressionable children will be harmed if what parents believe ought to be done behind closed doors is done in the public square so as to appear normal.

I don't think it needs pointing out that you have different ideas to me as to what is acceptable 'in the public square.'

 

[public hermit]

‘Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…’

Winston S Churchill, 11 November 1947

I've been thinking about this for quite some time (probably a lot more since the Brexit vote). There must surely be a way to improve the way we decide the major decisions that are needed to be made. Surely it's impossible to argue that what we have now is actually the best we can expect. As Winston also said:

'The best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter'.

Somebody please cheer me up and tell me we can expect something better.

I can remember studying Plato in the mid 2000s and thinking his critique of democracy was a bit much, i.e., that it leads to tyranny. I don't think it's over the top anymore, sadly. I'm not for a bunch of philosopher kings/queens, but he was not wrong. At least, the potential is there, as has been demonstrated in recent years.

 

[Pommer]

I can't. Can you?

Did you try?

 

[Pommer]

I don't think to whom the debt is owed to matters. "[T]o service the debt crowds out essential spending for national defense and the general welfare."

We could just “forgive” the debt to ourselves?